Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Kittens Are Jerks 5,067

Kittens Are Jerks 5,067

which all the more gives the lie to the picture of the "rectangular" ice flow with the icebreaker ship in the foreground.

Not sure why you are convinced the tabular iceberg off the coast of Baffin Island is fake. It has absolutely nothing to do with the iceberg mentioned in the OP's article, so any size (or other) comparisons to determine legitimacy are faulty from the outset.

Oh who am I kidding. It's not an iceberg, it's a...

10

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Saru 5,936

Saru 5,936

Site Webmaster

Administrator

5,936

24,370 posts

Gender:Male

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Kittens Are Jerks 5,067

Kittens Are Jerks 5,067

You're right, they wouldn't. But I can understand how in this instance their first reaction would be one of disbelief. It's just so incredibly perfect looking, especially in comparison to its surrounding landscape. And NASA sure has a way of making things look otherworldly — that's how spectacular their images often are.

I've seen tabular icebergs up close, but nothing quite like this one (and certainly not from the same viewpoint). One almost wants to put chocolate icing on it.

You're right, they wouldn't. But I can understand how in this instance their first reaction would be one of disbelief. It's just so incredibly perfect looking, especially in comparison to its surrounding landscape. And NASA sure has a way of making things look otherworldly — that's how spectacular their images often are.

To be fair, NASA doesn't release a lot of raw images. Most are touched up by artists, composites of several images put together or can be entirely CGI created based on known data.

NASA routinely processes raw images to enhance details, or to visualize things the human eye could never see, agency officials have said. Other space agencies, and many astronomers, do the same thing.

Such editing lets scientists and the public gain a better understanding of the structure of celestial objects — and a better appreciation of their beauty.

Quote

Take, as an example, photos beamed back to Earth by the Hubble Space Telescope, which has been imaging the cosmos since 1990. Many of these images are processed or edited, as SPACE.com reported back in 2002.

Like Cassini, Hubble takes separate, digital color images through red, blue, green and other filters. Scientists can combine these photos to create a comprehensive picture. Often, this image is a close approximation of what people would see if they could get close enough to the object in a spacecraft.

This is actually the core argument of the "flat-earthers", believe it or not. They argue that since so few raw pictures have been released by NASA, primarily of the Earth as seen from space, that leaves open the possibility that NASA could tell us whatever they want and we have no way of verifying it. This allows NASA to spin a false narrative of space exploration and technology development that warrants a budget of $54 million per day. That's a lot of cheddar for...nefarious projects.

I personally don't believe it but an increasing number of people do in the age of Government distrust...